I write about Asian enterprises in California. My Asia experiences include living in Beijing for a year after graduating in English at UC Davis and briefly being an editorial assistant at the Hong Kong bureau for Forbes in 2012. I was previously at a startup news site in L.A. called Truthdig and now I'm based in the Bay Area. Feel free to follow me on Twitter (@rosatrieu), Google+ (Rosa Trieu) or Instagram (@cc_encogneeto).

Hongkongers' Press Freedom Threatened By China's Creeping Influence

A protest outside the offices of the South China Morning Post (SCMP) newspaper in Hong Kong on June 21, 2012. (Image credit: AFP/Getty Images via @daylife)

An overwhelming majority of journalists say press freedom has deteriorated significantly under Chief Executive Donald Tsang’s administration, according to a recent survey. The Hong Kong Journalists Association’s latest survey on self-censorship found that 86.9% of journalists have felt a tighter grip of information by the government, a 28.5% increase from a similar survey in January 2007.

As the 15th anniversary of the handover and inauguration of the new pro-Beijing chief executive draws near, the fear of China’s creeping influence has grown. Hong Kong’s greatest fear is the erosion of its unique “one country, two systems” policy where it exercises certain freedoms it would not be able to enjoy under a communist regime. A recent turn of events at the South China Morning Post worsened the outlook on the country’s press freedom.

The editor-in-chief of the leading English-language newspaper in Hong Kong, Wang Xiangwei, from mainland China, has been making headlines across other publications since Wednesday, after senior sub-editor Alex Price widely circulated an email exchange between himself and Wang regarding the story on a well-known Chinese dissident. It was a major breaking story that had been reduced by nearly three-quarters to a briefing in the middle section of the paper. The SCMP said they had printed a “438-word news story on Li’s death in its first edition. But the story was cut back to a 101-word news brief for its second edition,” on June 7.

In the e-mail to Wang, Price asked Wang to explain why Li’s story had been “nibbed,” whereas other papers covered his death to greater detail. Instead of explaining, Wang tersely responded: “I made that decision.” Price sent another e-mail: “Any chance you can say why? It’s just that to the outside world it looks an awful like self-censorship.”

Wang responded: “I don’t have to explain to you anything. I made the decision and I stand by it. If you don’t like it, you know what to do.”

“Li Wangyang, a good man died for his cause and we turned it from a story into a brief. The rest of Hong Kong splashed on it,” Price replied. “Your staff are understandably concerned by this. News is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations. Please explain the decision to reduce the suspicious death of Li Wangyang to a brief. I need to be able to explain it to my friends who are asking why we did it.

“I’m sorry but your reply of ‘it is my decision, if you don’t like it you know what to do’ is not enough in such a situation. Frankly it seems to be saying ‘shut up or go.’ Yet on the day it counted we reduced the story to a nib. Journalistic ethics are at stake. The credibility of the South China Morning Post is at stake. Your staff — and readers — deserve an answer.”

Price sent the conversation to his colleagues, which led to it going public. Their efforts resulted in Wang sending a statement to his staff after being accused of self-censoring Li’s death. Wang denied downplaying the story.

“Although I chose not to prioritize coverage on the first day it broke until more facts and details surrounding the circumstances of this case could be established,” Wang wrote, “we subsequently splashed no less than three front pages, two leaders, plus several other prominent positions including two articles by myself.”

But Mak Yinting, chairperson for HKJA, expressed to the Asia Sentinel he didn’t find Wang’s response satisfactory. “I don’t think he explained his actions. He denied he had downplayed the story, when as a matter of fact you compare it with other papers the facts were well known. It is strange to put out a brief with two bylines, and that is an indication that they had the story. His explanation doesn’t begin to satisfy those questions.”

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.